On Dec 12, 2006, at 2:06 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
The fact of the matter is you are directly competing and blowing
against the wind with the every growing MTA trend of REDUCING
unsolicited abusive mail and spam BEFORE it gets to the user.
Whether you like it or not, its a reality both technically and
every more growing in the legal world. Its happening. So get use to
it.
DKIM might be used for white-listing (assuming the SMTP client can be
associated with the signing-domain). White-listing does not get rid
of abusive mail, it trades off other measures that might be more
costly in terms of integrity or overhead.
DKIM however can never reduce the level of abuse through the
application of a restrictive policy. DKIM can reduce the level of
abuse by making spoofing unsuccessful. There are millions of new
domains created every day at no cost to the bad actor. Neither SPF
or DKIM identify new sources based upon some restrictive policy. A
restrictive policy adds little, if any anti-spoofing protection when
the recipient must still visual recognize the originator based upon
what they see. Authentication and recognition is where progress is
made, often by intelligent filtering at this point that is not based
upon a policy record. DKIM in conjunction with a recognition scheme
provides reasonable protections without any policy record being
used. The policy record requirements should instead focus on
ensuring a larger portion of email can be recognized without complex
three-party administration, as now envisioned. Focus upon enabling a
greater use of DKIM+Recognition+Annotation.
So either DKIM-BASE is going to be part of the solution or its not,
at the very least, my INPUT says that SSP will give it a fighting
chance and in all honestly, will help people, as yourself, in your
market who have a direct interest in seeing users' make the final
decision of all messages.
With a recognition scheme that adds annotation on messages found in
their address-book or on a DAC compatible list, this will help people
by providing the desired protections. A restrictive scheme takes
away freedoms without little protective benefit, but at a loss of
email integrity.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
